From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11604C98318 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 16:17:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x9m81-0003Cl-Ay; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:16:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x9m7z-0003Cb-No for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:16:55 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1x9m7x-00055h-I2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:16:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1790266610; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/ZdaqttdbNXPtEkMSIXzsiFaaXSlIcXrCM+6YaX1/OI=; b=ExPPHJtSGc2uuZBopIKYZi/oUOMBNWXUsIOSPc3HkfkoWRy0k8a3GH6DRO8fXkSP88ExyN P9OzITKf455jECld4f9FoN58B1WLhMZhv7j02gDc2Zm1tcl2of/qyDMKyF8tTQPVl+5NTU nWGHp/1x09lLy6LIbWePPJi4qGeVH/o= Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-686-UxPeLIxaMWWSjYcvYrj5JA-1; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:16:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: UxPeLIxaMWWSjYcvYrj5JA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: UxPeLIxaMWWSjYcvYrj5JA_1790266608 Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6a9bb406f0cso19257a12.1 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:16:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=google; t=1790266608; x=1790871408; darn=nongnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=/ZdaqttdbNXPtEkMSIXzsiFaaXSlIcXrCM+6YaX1/OI=; b=Qg5B+/FHQ60Mg09dU9H9yGjnMOGwGDgfCu0gA+lR4DfjhRC9YNkK9IhopwtTl3fsgj 2Eml9Va8Iw2lri3DEhpMkKuWz2bGvTFoHa/mkNg1vITGrQnKLrbaVSrVfnc31kfMQoX9 t597iroTOAXoJX7z0MBdhT1U4kg6eFb+Ogc+3H8qjG9EzNIgZTtICqX/nrK5L1U0wmVy QJwHOCzj+wHME+Wlm3a18LGsERZib1YAYlxrjn1ijcGt6pFYsipxxvbpZwGr6xW4gg2q dmPalCca2rBz7MsK4myjSetLHu9V6tLt+m8QlfIT3R9CkDcUfAQm1BYe73VBXWsUbZnk zrSg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1790266608; x=1790871408; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=/ZdaqttdbNXPtEkMSIXzsiFaaXSlIcXrCM+6YaX1/OI=; b=HG/gIzBu0BCLg5IY9P+S7bCClMuHIIoUh+JqQW8pjpRO6vB/7TlOO6MQgUU+ESLAHQ 1u7G/9JTNLYdeilpirWfVQTLU7WSi6L4rRGnzmWhs63Fc+yClXc0hzmbexBmxwwDQqD8 XenbfGLu2oef/p/1xaP8Ud3rWglUjLlyMMt3SODKGHXkNdAlX+m9kBw3IHQqAM+VBHa2 XQnW6hot1N6yp/8y90p6Uo7RTC6fTFG+DPUWTzUg/CqbwC7oVRhlzp4ysxXmRWf7ZWvp rL3bvQorK8LKMVoGkRV/qczqL3bRwQVRh2mgFPesTmdXZVnx9rxOBHFdn9PKBZ52Wvla TcxA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBxQNLumcnP1Q6vNQOk2M6V5ayjItCZCT6cWhPG3JtWHHQdHjU0plxyRrDUMdm4S3/ODZ1byuHL6HOoN@nongnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++mL3MWIAB6VCvD3g+i7bpPnTAnPF7dPFRdId8DV64Zzj2OyrgKj oG5HE+lXiK3MPRQG8wGkYEUR8Eat60iNVJhVEf3PCWqmztM+otjssK4JezZog+IJeyjSkf6+rto V3j6nbs/otpQgZN8fVJQ6I9P8gsGA0McHZ8G4C4+ozofSHeyGHTPHZT0F X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou0oqPbU6olZulXg81KwO8gGeZImTgYnaskIy/QSjc2HH8W7pB388/K4DDb+4z3 EPxcXaWe2sIL58qNegkdQcwUXYntagEwgMZabRlzC0JztaW5KrevIw4m0ZsN5aAEIapfQlpyDLf Y6uOW6C/Ir23VNpugkcTfY5ZkXNhgoqVN9q4t0SPLc1u1O0JhgebLnhgRZtiqXyoVrcuUCFfcrH 09+bxgvIHFyC6NyP7DEBr4NifuPMqgR2H+2CFHGPAFy9TwM4t5D9aNJ5Ovjq8xXHUONdj4VaQkn evxxMnPrjOd+PmvejHC8UwLNnKxaES03oo4C3e+mznagr5/N1nFSStQX/AdzxEUX9hA3RBZdqh4 MEerl2vM5ONmdwmb+oiwqCKzaD1N5O9T9d4qHykNuYFnZYxPjmhCq2Ek4cyLwZcdH+g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:3245:b0:6a9:850d:bb38 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6aac8eec505mr2007114a12.10.1790266607617; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:16:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:3245:b0:6a9:850d:bb38 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6aac8eec505mr2007080a12.10.1790266606983; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com (2a02-ab04-0158-f000-2548-f3bd-8b42-b18f.dynamic.v6.chello.sk. [2a02:ab04:158:f000:2548:f3bd:8b42:b18f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6aab386e596sm3917674a12.7.2026.09.24.09.16.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:16:43 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Daniel =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=2E_Berrang=E9?= , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alex =?iso-8859-1?Q?Benn=E9e?= , Alistair Francis , BALATON Zoltan , Fabiano Rosas , Peter Maydell , Warner Losh , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] docs/devel: relax policy on AI-generated contributions Message-ID: <20260924120752-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20260921075251.12831-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20260921075251.12831-2-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20260923220502-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=mst@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 11:41:54AM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 24.09.2026 um 04:23 hat Michael S. Tsirkin geschrieben: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > > Am 21.09.2026 um 15:20 hat Daniel P. Berrangé geschrieben: > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 09:52:48AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > +.. note:: **Use of AI does not remove the need for authors to comply > > > > > + with all other requirements for contribution.** In particular, > > > > > + the ``Signed-off-by`` label in a patch submission is a statement > > > > > + that the author takes responsibility for the entire contents of > > > > > + the patch, certifying that their patch submission is made in > > > > > + accordance with the rules of the :ref:`Developer's Certificate of > > > > > + Origin (DCO) `. > > > > > + > > > > > + Since a submitter cannot audit LLM output against its training > > > > > + data, the DCO is paired with :ref:`metadata in the commit message > > > > > + ` about AI-generated parts. The DCO still certifies > > > > > + that the contributor has the legal right to submit code in general. > > > > > > > > I'm not a fan of this second paragraph, as that feels like it is undermining > > > > the DCO. That first sentence in particular is somewhat saying that the > > > > contributor does not have to think about plagarism and thed project is ok > > > > with that, and also implying that the DCO doesn't apply to the LLM output. > > > > This is both not OK in its implication of the project accepting some > > > > liability, and then also contradicted by the next sentence. > > > > > > > > IMHO this paragraph should just be removed. The first paragraph clearly > > > > states the DCO applies to the submission as a whole, and leaves all liability > > > > for infringement on the contributor. > > > > > > I don't think making this the individual contributor's problem is great. > > > It's rather unfriendly towards contributors to expect them to certify > > > something that we all know they can't honestly certify. > > > > > > Our current AI policy was built on the assertion that it's impossible to > > > sign the DCO for AI output, and I think that's still right. A developer > > > can't certify the origin of something when they don't really know where > > > it comes from. > > > > > > If we decide that we don't care as much about the legal risks any more > > > and that we're willing to accept them to some extent, that should be > > > explicitly reflected in the policy. > > > > > > It seems to me that the cleanest way to do it is to exempt correctly > > > advertised (with 'AI-used-for:') AI output from the DCO requirement and > > > instead add to the 'AI-used-for:' definition some relaxed version of it, > > > e.g. "I have reviewed the contribution for potential licensing issues > > > and haven't found a reason to doubt that I have the rights to submit > > > this AI generated content under the open source license indicated in the > > > file". This is something that could realistically be certified by > > > contributors in good faith and also isn't just "anything goes", but of > > > course it still is weaker than the DCO. > > > > > > If we're not willing to take the legal risk from this, we should > > > probably leave the current AI policy unchanged instead of telling > > > contributors that they have to work in a legal grey area. > > > > > > Kevin > > > > Which risk precisely? That a judge will close all LLMs overnight > > declaring their output a derivative of the internet and so illegal to > > use? Please. > > I mean, at least morally that would be the right thing to do. If what > they did isn't illegal, that's a bug in the law. I'm not prepared to argue morality, and I don't even know who "they" would be. But if an LLM is transformative then it's not a derivative, that's a feature of the law, not a bug. > But no, I don't expect this to happen, but am referring to the more > commonly talked about case of LLMs occasionally reproducing a single > source more or less verbatim, which is what could give you legal trouble > even practically speaking. They don't really seem to do that unless you try to ask them to. > You can't know for sure if this happens, so I don't think you could sign > the DCO (you really can't know for sure if you have "right to submit it > under the open source license indicated in the file"), but you can check > for suspicious things and if you don't find any, say it's probably okay. > > You seem to be saying that it's not only probably okay, but definitely > okay, but then that's even less of a problem. > > > But just like "AI" does not mean "illegal" it does not mean "legal". > > > > For example, if I give an LLM a chunk of code and say "adopt this to qemu" then > > an argument can be made that it is a derivative of the code I supplied. > > > > Whether to give an LLM web access so it can pull in random bits of code > > and create derivatives of that is entirely under developer's control. > > > > Whether AI output is a derivative of LLM weights is also an open > > question, mitigated by the fact that many LLM vendors will assign > > copyright to their users. Whether to use an LLM where that is the case > > is also under developer's control. > > > > I'm not sure why we need to get into so much detail, though. > > See, you bring up uncertainties yourself that nobody can answer today. Oh people can easily make sure their LLM is not poking at the web, today. > This is exactly why I wouldn't want to make people lie and say "I know > this is definitely okay", but accept "I tried to be careful and to the > best of my knowledge there is no problem" instead for the licensing of > LLM output. > > This seems reasonable enough to me. I'm just saying that if others > disagree and we're not willing to accept the weaker assertion that > people actually can make in good faith, then we should stay out of LLM > generated content entirely instead of making people lie. > > Kevin